PM

40
1:
:1
02
0
01
Ethernet Transport over PDH Networks

2
il,
pr
with Virtual Concatenation Tutorial

5A
,1
ay
sd
White Paper
ur
Th
on
No
of
L

Steve Gorshe
ar
ou

Principal Engineer
An
by
d]
lle
tro
on
[c
ed

Issue 1.0: November, 2005

ad

PMC- 2050380
lo
wn
Do

© 2005 PMC-Sierra, Inc.

 Ethernet Transport over PDH Networks with Virtual Concatenation
White Paper

Abstract

PM
40
Virtual concatenation and LCAS were originally defined for SONET/SDH signals and G.709

1:
OTN signals. Asynchronous hierarchy (DSn) and PDH signals lacked the overhead bandwidth

:1
required for the virtual concatenation and LCAS overhead channel. DSn and PDH signals are

02
still leased by carriers as the means of accessing their enterprise customers through another
carrier’s network. Aside from the ubiquitous availability of DSn/PDH connectivity, there are

0
01
regulatory conditions in the United States that give DSn connectivity a price advantage for this
application. When the virtual concatenation of DSn and PDH signals was requested by multiple

2
il,
carriers, modified signal frame formats were defined to create the required overhead channel.

pr
These frame formats are defined in new ITU-T Recommendation G.7043, and the topic of this

5A
white paper. This white paper also covers the mapping of GFP payloads into these signals, as
defined in new ITU-T Recommendation G.8040.

,1
ay
sd
ur
About the Author
Th
on
Steve Gorshe, Ph.D. is a Principal Engineer in the Product Research Group and oversees ICs for
SONET, optical transmission and access systems.
No
of

Currently Steve is a senior member of the IEEE and co-editor for the IEEE Communications
magazine’s Broadband Access Series. He is the chief editor for the ANSI T1X1 Subcommittee,
L

which is responsible for SONET and optical network interface standards. He is a recent recipient
ar

of the Committee T1 Alvin Lai Outstanding Achievement Award for his standards work and has
ou

been a technical editor for T1.105, T1.105.01, T1.105.02, and T1.105.07 within the SONET
An

standard series as well as the ITU-T G.7041 (GFP) G.7043 (Virtual concatenation of PDH
by

signals), G.8040 (GFP mapping into PDH signals), and G.8011.1 (Ethernet Private Line Service)
recommendations. He has 26 patents issued or pending and several published papers.
d]
lle
tro
on

Revision History
[c
ed

Issue No. Issue Date Details of Change

ad

1 November, Document created

2005
lo
wn
Do

PMC-2050380 1
© 2005 PMC-Sierra, Inc.
 Ethernet Transport over PDH Networks with Virtual Concatenation
White Paper

Contents

PM
40
Abstract.............................................................................................................................. 1

1:
About the Author............................................................................................................... 1

:1
Revision History................................................................................................................ 1

02
Contents............................................................................................................................. 2

0
01
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 3

2
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 3

il,
pr
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4

5A
2 Alternatives for creating N x PDH signal channels ............................................... 5

,1
3 The Solution............................................................................................................... 7

ay
4 Mapping GFP frames into PDH channels (single and virtually

sd
concatenated)......................................................................................................... 11

ur
5 Conclusions............................................................................................................. 12

Th
6 References ............................................................................................................... 13
on
7 Notes ........................................................................................................................ 14
No
of
L
ar
ou
An
by
d]
lle
tro
on
[c
ed
ad
lo
wn
Do

PMC-2050380 2
© 2005 PMC-Sierra, Inc.
 Ethernet Transport over PDH Networks with Virtual Concatenation
White Paper

List of Figures

PM
40
Figure 1 Example of PDH access through an ILEC........................................................ 4

1:
:1
Figure 2 Multiframe format for the virtual concatenation of asynchronous / PDH

02
signals............................................................................................................... 7

0
Figure 3 LCAS control packet format for PDH signals.................................................. 10

201
Figure 4 Examples illustrating the mapping of GFP frames into PDH channels .......... 11

il,
pr
5A
List of Tables

,1
ay
Table 1 Comparison of technologies for inverse multiplexing into NxPDH

sd
signals............................................................................................................... 6

ur
Th
on
No
of
L
ar
ou
An
by
d]
lle
tro
on
[c
ed
ad
lo
wn
Do

PMC-2050380 3
© 2005 PMC-Sierra, Inc.
 Ethernet Transport over PDH Networks with Virtual Concatenation
White Paper

1 Introduction

PM
40
Since the global transport network has evolved to be based primarily on SONET/SDH

1:
technology, it may seem strange to want to add new capabilities to the previous generation

:1
asynchronous / plesiochronous digital hierarchy signal (e.g., DS1 and E1) technologies1. These

02
networks, however, are still ubiquitously deployed and are still more common than SONET/SDH
signals for enterprise access applications. Among the reasons for their ongoing prevalence in the

0
01
enterprise access networks is that many of the access interfaces are still delivered over copper
wires.

2
il,
pr
At least as important as the effectively ubiquitous availability of plesiochronous networks is the

5A
artificial advantage they have due to the regulatory unbundling of services. As part of
unbundling, U.S. incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) are required to offer DS1 and DS3

,1
access links to other carriers, such as competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) or

ay
interexchange carriers (IECs), for lower tariff rates than equivalent SONET interfaces. The result

sd
of the tariff advantage and the availability of DS1 and DS3 connectivity is that when IECs or

ur
service providers lack their own facilities to connect to their enterprise subscribers, they typically

Th
lease DS1 or DS3 connections through the ILECs. An example of this network configuration is
shown in Figure 1. on
No

Figure 1 Example of PDH access through an ILEC

of
L

Ethernet IEC or
ar

interface ILEC Service Provider

ou

Transport Network
An

CPE CLE (e.g., SONET)

UNI Network
by

DS1, DS3, NxDS1,

d]

or NxDS3 link
lle
tro
on
[c

This PDH situation, combined with the growing interest in providing native Ethernet
connectivity, leads inevitably to a desire to map Ethernet into PDH signals. Although a number
ed

of proprietary implementations existed, there were no standards for mapping native Ethernet into
ad

DS1, DS3, NxDS1 and NxDS3 signals. In order to provide Ethernet connectivity to their
lo

enterprise customers over DS1/DS3 connections, the major U.S. IECs asked for GFP mappings
wn

into DSn and En signals. (GFP provides an encapsulation of native Ethernet frames in order to
Do

carry them through a transport network. See PMC-Sierra white paper PMC-2041083.) The
resulting mappings were specified in the new ITU-T G.8040.

1
Both the North American asynchronous hierarchy and the plesiochronous digital hierarchy (PDH) will be
referred to in this white paper as PDH for convenience.

PMC-2050380 4
© 2005 PMC-Sierra, Inc.
 Ethernet Transport over PDH Networks with Virtual Concatenation
White Paper

2 Alternatives for creating N x PDH signal channels

PM
40
The GFP mapping into a single DS3 signal was defined first while mappings into DS1, E1,

1:
NxDS1, and NxE1 were studied. Carriers wanted to have the NxDS1 and NxE1 connections and

:1
use N=1 for mapping into single signals. Subsequently, interest developed for similar NxDS3 and

02
NxE3 signals (e.g., for carrying data from 100Base Ethernet interfaces). Ideally, the
NxDS1/E1/DS3/E3 should operate at Layer 1, providing transparent transport of Layer 2 protocol

0
01
frames, independent of which Layer 2 protocol is being carried. The only existing non-
proprietary solution was the Multilink Point-to-Point Protocol (ML-PPP defined in IETF RFC

2
1990), which performs inverse multiplexing2 at the packet level. Since ML-PPP is a Layer 2

il,
pr
protocol, it requires terminating the Ethernet signal in order to remap the packets into ML-PPP

5A
(i.e., change between the two different Layer 2 protocols)3. No byte level inverse multiplexing
schemes such as VCAT existed since DS1 and DS3 signals lacked sufficient overhead to support

,1
VCAT, and reserving an entire payload channel for the overhead was too much capacity to lose4.

ay
Table 1 shows a comparison of the different candidate technologies that were considered.

sd
ur
Th
on
No
of
L
ar
ou
An
by
d]
lle
tro
on
[c
ed
ad

2
Inverse multiplexing refers to taking the payload from a higher rate channel and transporting it by
distributing it over multiple lower rate channels. The granularity used for assigning the payload data
lo

among the lower rate channels can be at the bit, byte, or packet/cell level.
wn
Do

3
Of course, ATM solutions existed, including Inverse Multiplexing over ATM (IMA). The carriers
requesting the new mapping did not favor an ATM solution for this application due to its overhead
inefficiency and it being another layer to provision.
4
Another potential solution existed from the Bandwidth ON Demand Interoperability Group (BONDING)
consortium. Inverse multiplexing here is performed at the byte level rather than the packet level. An
initialization sequence is sent on all the constituent lower-rate channels in order to synchronize the source
and sink. While this technique requires no per-packet or per-link overhead, the channel must be disrupted
for a long period of re-initialization when the channel size is changed.

PMC-2050380 5
© 2005 PMC-Sierra, Inc.
 Ethernet Transport over PDH Networks with Virtual Concatenation
White Paper

PM
Table 1 Comparison of technologies for inverse multiplexing into NxPDH signals

OPTION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

40
Layer 2 frame Proven technology exists for ML-PPP Layer 2 technology specific – It either

1:
inverse and Ethernet Link Aggregation enforces a Layer 2 approach or requires

:1
multiplexing re-mapping client data packets.

02
No overhead required for each individual
E1/DS1/DS3/E3 link Requires additional per-packet overhead

0
Easy to add or remove links(trivial control (e.g., for packet sequence numbering)

01
protocol) Egress queue management more

2
NOTE – Layer 1 (i.e., GFP) packet complex due to the need to re-align the

il,
interleaving was also considered, with at packets from the different links in the

pr
least one proprietary solution existing. correct sequence.

5A
Although it provides the Layer 2 When there is a light load, a single link
transparency, it otherwise has the same (or subset of links) is used for each

,1
advantages and disadvantages as Layer packet rather than the entire set. This

ay
2 packet interleaving. results in increased latency for lightly
loaded cases.

sd
Under any load condition, the egress

ur
queue management will tend to introduce

Th
additional latency.
Byte inverse Relatively simple. Changing the number of links (members)
on
multiplexing Uses no additional per-link or per-packet requires taking the connection down for a
No

with overhead overhead. link re-synchronization.

barrowing
of

Byte inverse Simple (trivial) egress buffer since out-of- Requires per-link overhead.
L

multiplexing order packet arrival is not possible. Control protocol for adding and removing
with
ar

Can directly re-use SDH virtual links is more complex (same complexity
permanent
ou

concatenation technology. as LCAS).

overhead
No additional per-packet overhead.
An

channel
Consistency with VCAT and LCAS
by

provides operational consistency and

network predictability for the carrier.
d]
lle
tro
on
[c
ed
ad
lo
wn
Do

PMC-2050380 6
© 2005 PMC-Sierra, Inc.
 Ethernet Transport over PDH Networks with Virtual Concatenation
White Paper

3 The Solution

PM
40
The solution, specified in the new ITU-T G.7043, was to adopt byte-level inverse multiplexing,

1:
but to borrow one octet from the signal’s payload area once per multiframe to carry the per-link

:1
overhead information rather than permanently reserving the entire time slot. Figure 2 shows the

02
resulting multiframe formats for the DS1, E1, DS3, and E3 signals.

0
01
Figure 2 Multiframe format for the virtual concatenation of asynchronous / PDH signals

2
il,
125 µs

pr
5A
Concatenation overhead octet
1 F

,1
2 F
Frame number

3 F

ay
4 F

sd
5 F

ur
Th
23 F
on
24 F
No

a) DS1 multiframe format for virtual concatenation

of

125 µs
L
ar

Concatenation overhead octet

ou

1 T.S.0
An

2 T.S.0
Frame number

3 T.S.0
4 T.S.0
by

5 T.S.0
d]
lle

15 T.S.0
tro

16 T.S.0
on

b) E1 multiframe format for virtual concatenation

[c
ed
ad
lo
wn
Do

PMC-2050380 7
© 2005 PMC-Sierra, Inc.
 Ethernet Transport over PDH Networks with Virtual Concatenation
White Paper

Figure 2 – continued

PM
40
680 bit subframe

1:
Concatenation overhead octet

:1
84 bits

02
X1 F1 C11 F2 C12 F3 C13 F4
X2 F1 C21 F2 C22 F3 C23 F4
7

0
P1 F1 C31 F2 C32 F3 C33 F4

01
subframe P2 F1 C41 F2 C42 F3 C43 F4
master-

2
M1 F1 C51 F2 C52 F3 C53 F4
frame M2 F1 C61 F2 C62 F3 C63 F4

il,
M3 F1 C71 F2 C72 F3 C73 F4

pr
5A
,1
c) DS3 multiframe format for virtual concatenation

ay
Concatenation overhead

sd
59 colums

ur
Th
FA1 FA2 VLI on
EM
No

TR
of

MA

9 rows
L

529 octet
NR
ar

payload
ou

GC
An
by
d]
lle
tro
on

d) E3 multiframe format for virtual concatenation

[c
ed
ad
lo
wn
Do

PMC-2050380 8
© 2005 PMC-Sierra, Inc.
 Ethernet Transport over PDH Networks with Virtual Concatenation
White Paper

As shown in Figure 3, the overhead carries the same type of LCAS5 control packet as is used in

PM
the SONET/SDH H4 byte. (See PMC white paper PMC-2030895.) The PDH and SONET/SDH
control packet format and bit definitions are identical except for the number of bits used in the

40
sequence number (SQ) and the specific multiplexing of the member status information into the

1:
MST bits of each control packet. The transmission order of the control packet in Figure 3 is left

:1
to right for the bits, and top to bottom for the octets. In all of the fields, the MSB is the first bit to

02
be transmitted. In the case of the SQ, SONET/SDH allows a maximum of 256 members and
hence uses a two-nibble (8-bit) SQ field. The maximum number of members is 16 for DS1/E1,

0
01
and is eight for DS3/E3. Hence, they require a SQ field of 4-bits and 3-bits, respectively. Since

2
the SQ values are justified to the LSBs with the upper, unused SQ field bits set to 0, the SQ field

il,
use is still consistent for SONET/SDH (H4), DS1/E1, and DS3/E3 member types.

pr
5A
,1
ay
sd
ur
Th
on
No
of
L
ar
ou
An
by
d]
lle
tro
on
[c
ed
ad
lo
wn
Do

5
The LCAS (Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme) for virtually concatenated channels is specified in ITU-T
Rec. G.7042.

PMC-2050380 9
© 2005 PMC-Sierra, Inc.
 Ethernet Transport over PDH Networks with Virtual Concatenation
White Paper

Figure 3 LCAS control packet format for PDH signals

PM
Concatenation overhead octet definition

40
1:
Bit 1 Bit 2 Bit 3 Bit 4 Bit 5 Bit 6 Bit 7 Bit 8

:1
02
Control Packet MFI1

0
MST (bits 1-4) 1 0 0 0

01
2
MST (bits 5-8) 1 0 0 1

il,
pr
0 0 0 RS- 1 0 1 0

5A
ACK

,1
Reserved (0000) 1 0 1 1

ay
sd
Reserved (0000) 1 1 0 0

ur
Reserved (0000) 1 1 0 1

Reserved (0000) 1
Th1 1 0
on
No

SQ bits 1-4 1 1 1 1
of

MFI2 MSBs (bits 1-4) 0 0 0 0

L
ar

MFI2 LSBs (bits 5-8) 0 0 0 1

ou

CTRL 0 0 1 0
An

0 0 0 GID 0 0 1 1
by
d]

Reserved (0000) 0 1 0 0
lle

Reserved (0000) 0 1 0 1
tro
on

C1 C2 C3 C4 0 1 1 0
[c

C5 C6 C7 C8 0 1 1 1
ed
ad
lo
wn
Do

PMC-2050380 10
© 2005 PMC-Sierra, Inc.
 Ethernet Transport over PDH Networks with Virtual Concatenation
White Paper

4 Mapping GFP frames into PDH channels (single and

PM
virtually concatenated)

40
1:
The encapsulation mechanism currently defined for carrying data frames in these virtually

:1
concatenated DS1, E1, DS3, and E3 signals is the Generic Framing Procedure (GFP). GFP is

02
presented in the next section of this chapter. The mapping, which is defined in ITU-T Rec.

0
G.8040, is described here.

201
Figure 4 Examples illustrating the mapping of GFP frames into PDH channels

il,
pr
5A
Concatenation overhead octet

,1
1 F
2 F

ay
Frame number

3 F
4 F

sd
5 F

ur
Th
23 F on
24 F
No

GFP Frame Overhead

of
L

a) Octet-aligned mapping for GFP into the DS1 signal

ar
ou
An
by

680 bit subframe (84 payload bytes)

CONCATENATION OVERHEAD OCTET
d]

84 bits
lle

X1 F1 C11 F2 C12 F3 C13 F4

tro

X2 F1 C21 F2 C22 F3 C23 F4

7
P1 F1 C31 F2 C32 F3 C33 F4
subframe
on

P2 F1 C41 F2 C42 F3 C43 F4

master- M1 F1 C51 F2 C52 F3 C53 F4
frame
[c

M2 F1 C61 F2 C62 F3 C63 F4

M3 F1 C71 F2 C72 F3 C73 F4
ed
ad

GFP Frame Overhead

lo
wn

b) Octet-aligned mapping for GFP into the DS3 signal

Do

PMC-2050380 11
© 2005 PMC-Sierra, Inc.
 Ethernet Transport over PDH Networks with Virtual Concatenation
White Paper

When GFP frames are mapped into DS1, DS3, E1, or E3 signals, the GFP frame octets are

PM
mapped octet-by-octet into the signal payload container octets. DS1 and E1 signals were
originally designed to have octet-structured payload containers, and an octet-oriented payload

40
container structure was added to the E3 signals in ITU-T Rec. G.832. In the case of DS3 signals,

1:
the payload structure was originally bit-structured. When ATM cell mappings were defined for

:1
DS3 payloads, they exploited the fact that there are 84 payload bits between DS3 framing bits and

02
defined a nibble-wise mapping with the ATM bytes divided into 4-bit nibbles and 21 nibbles
mapped into the 84 payload bits. The GFP mapping took advantage of there being an even

0
01
number of nibbles per subframe and chose an octet-oriented structure for the payload mapping in
order to be consistent with the octet-oriented concatenation overhead channel6. These mappings

2
il,
are illustrated in Figure 4-9 for the DS1 and DS3 signals.

pr
5A
5 Conclusions

,1
Due to their continuing nearly universal availability, PDH networks will continue to play an

ay
important role as carriers roll out new data services. This will be especially true in North

sd
America as long as DS1s and DS3s have a cost advantage due to unbundling of tariffs in the

ur
access networks. The new ITU-T Rec. G.8040 provides an efficient, robust GFP-based mapping

Th
into PDH signals and the new ITU-T Rec. G.7043 provides the virtual concatenation capability
on
with LCAS to flexibly choose and adjust the channel size in a PDH network. The combination of
these two technology enhancements to PDH networks provides carriers with powerful tools to
No

offer new, higher-rate Ethernet connectivity services while continuing to derive benefit from their
existing PDH infrastructures. Providing new services, and maximizing the return on existing
of

capital investment, provide compelling business drivers for carriers to invest in best-in-class
L

implementations of G.8040 and G.7043 technologies.

ar
ou
An
by
d]
lle
tro
on
[c
ed
ad
lo
wn
Do

6
The nibble-oriented mapping was originally chosen for the GFP mapping into a DS3 signal. Since virtual
concatenation is less complex to implement with an octet-oriented structure than with the nibble-oriented
structure, the mapping switched to octet-orientation after virtual concatenation was defined for DS3s. .

PMC-2050380 12
© 2005 PMC-Sierra, Inc.
 Ethernet Transport over PDH Networks with Virtual Concatenation
White Paper

6 References

PM
40
[1] M. Elanti, S. Gorshe, L. Raman, and W. Grover, Next Generation Transport Networks – Data,

1:
Management, and Control Plane Technologies, Springer, 2005.

:1
02
[2] ITU-T Recommendation G.7043 (2004), Virtual Concatenation of Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy
(PDH) signals (S. Gorshe – technical editor)

0
01
[3] ITU-T Recommendation G.7042/Y.1305 (2001), Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme for Virtual

2
Concatenated Signals

il,
pr
5A
[4] ITU-T Recommendation G.8040 (2004), GFP frame mapping into Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy
(PDH) (S. Gorshe – technical editor)

,1
ay
[5] S. Gorshe, A Tutorial on SONET/SDH Technology White Paper, PMC-Sierra, PMC-2030895.

sd
[6] T1.105-2001 Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) Basic Description including Multiplex

ur
Structure, Rates, and Formats (S. Gorshe – technical editor)

Th
on
[7] ITU-T Recommendation G.707 (1996), Synchronous Digital Hierarchy Bit Rates.
No

[8] ITU-T Recommendation G.7041/Y.1303 (2001), Generic Framing Procedure. (S. Gorshe –
of

technical editor)
L

[9] S. Gorshe, Generic Framing Procedure (GFP), PMC-Sierra, PMC-2041083.

ar
ou

[10] IETF RFC 1990, The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP). K. Sklower, B. Lloyd, G. McGregor, D. Carr, T.
An

Coradetti. August 1996.

by

[11] Interoperability Requirements for Nx56/64 kbit/s Calls, version 1.0, from the Bandwidth ON
d]

Demand INteroperability Group (BONDING) Consortium, 1992

lle
tro

.
on
[c
ed
ad
lo
wn
Do

PMC-2050380 13
© 2005 PMC-Sierra, Inc.
 Resilient Packet Ring (RPR)
Technology White Paper

7 Notes

PM
40
1:
:1
02
0
201
il,
pr
5A
,1
ay
sd
ur
Th
on
No
of
L
ar
ou
An
by
d]
lle
tro
on
[c
ed
ad
lo
wn
Do

14

Head Office: To order documentation, All product documentation is © Copyright

PMC-Sierra, Inc. send email to: available on our web site at: PMC-Sierra, Inc. 2005.
#105 - 8555 Baxter Place document@pmc-sierra.com http://www.pmc-sierra.com/
Burnaby, B.C. V5A 4V7 or contact the head office, http://www.pmc-sierra.com/processors/ PMC-2050380 (1.0)
Canada Attn: Document Coordinator http://www.pmc-sierra.com/serdes/
Tel: 604.415.6000
Fax: 604.415.6200 For corporate information, All rights reserved.
send email to:
mailto:info@pmc-sierra.com